MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016067547 · doi:10.14283/jfa.2020.15

Practical Implications for Strength and Conditioning of Older Pre-Frail Females

2020· article· en· W3016067547 on OpenAlexaff
Nick W. Bray, Graeme Jones, Kathy L. Rush, Charlotte Jones, Jennifer M. Jakobi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Frailty & Aging · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineResistance trainingMeaning (existential)SquatResistance (ecology)Session (web analytics)GerontologyIntervention (counseling)Physical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationApplied psychologyPsychologyPsychotherapistNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Approaches to and benefits from resistance training for non-compromised older adults are well known. Less is understood about resistance training with pre-frail older adults, and even less information is available on the practical approaches to delivery. Herein, we describe an approach in pre-frail females who undertook a multi-component exercise intervention, inclusive of high-intensity, free-weight, functional resistance training. Capitalizing on the principle of overload is possible and safe for pre-frail females through constant reassurance of ability and adjustments in technique. Making exercise functionally relevant, for example, a squat is the ability to get on and off a toilet, resonates meaning. Older pre-frail females are affected by outside (clinical) influences. The exercise participant, and extraneous persons need to be educated on exercise approaches, to increase awareness, debunk myths, and enhance support for participation. Identification of individuality in a group session offers ability to navigate barriers for successful implementation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Frailty & AgingSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207